On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:08:11AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child > tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with > valid generation and checksum. > > Although btrfs check could handle it and print error message like: > leaf parent key incorrect 60670574592 > > Kernel doesn't have enough check on this type of corruption correctly. > At least add such check to read_tree_block() and btrfs_read_buffer(), > where we need two new parameters @level and @first_key to verify the > child tree block. > > The new @level check is mandatory and all call sites are already > modified to extract expected level from its call chain. > > While @first_key is optional, the following call sites are skipping such > check: > 1) Root node/leaf > As ROOT_ITEM doesn't contain the first key, skip @first_key check. > 2) Direct backref > Only parent bytenr and level is known and we need to resolve the key > all by ourselves, skip @first_key check. > > Another note of this verification is, it needs extra info from nodeptr > or ROOT_ITEM, so it can't fit into current tree-checker framework, which > is limited to node/leaf boundary. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com> > --- > changelog: > v2: > Make @level check mandatory, suggesed by Jeff and Nikolay. > Change parameter order as @level is now mandatory, put it in front of > @first_key. > Change verify_parent_level() to verify_key_level() to avoid confusion > on the @level parameter. > Add btrfs_error() output for CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG to help debugging. > v2.1 > Rebased to misc-next branch, to use parent_level, it needs to revert > Nikolay's patch "btrfs: Remove unused parent_level var from > btrfs_realloc_node", > sorry Nikolay.
Ah ok, I've reverted the patch, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
